by ALF Project
Heavily Accented Philosophy of Law podcast (HAPL) is an initiative of EU Twinning Project ALF (“Advancing Cooperation on the Foundations of Law”). ALF is a project coordinated by the Center for Legal Fundamentals of the Faculty of Law University of Belgrade. To know more about the project: https://alf.ius.bg.ac.rs/
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
3/1/2024
See how your podcast performs across key metrics
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
Unlock comprehensive insights including:
See how your show performs across every key metric
High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.
Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.
Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
April 6, 2026
<p>In this episode, we delve into the topic of legal interpretation and its theoretical foundations. What are the core elements of a rigorous account of legal interpretation? How has the conversational model — drawing on ideas about communication and pragmatics — shaped the field in recent decades? What are the main positions within this approach, and who are its key proponents? And if we move away from the conversational paradigm, how should we think about the standards by which an interpretation can be evaluated? Is objectivity in interpretation something we truly need, or can we do without it?</p><p><strong>Francesca Poggi </strong>joins us to explore these questions and to present her own account of legal interpretation. We discuss the appeal and the limitations of grounding legal interpretation in the theory of conversation, examining the structural differences between ordinary communicative exchanges and the interpretation of legal texts. Poggi identifies the key problems with the conversational model and outlines an alternative framework — one that takes seriously the question of how to assess interpretive outcomes once the assumption of objectivity is put under pressure.</p><p><strong>Francesca Poggi</strong> is <a href="https://www.unimi.it/en/ugov/person/francesca-poggi" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">full professor at the Department in legal science "Cesare Beccaria" at the University of Milan</a>, where she coordinates the PhD programme in legal science "Cesare Beccaria". She teaches on numerous Italian and international master's and advanced courses. Her research interests range from general jurisprudence to bioethics and gender legal studies, always with a particular focus on legal interpretation.</p><p>She has published in international journals such as Jurisprudence, Revus, and Ratio juris, and has co-edited volumes such as <a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/research-methods-in-consumer-law-9781785366604.html" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer"></a><a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/interpretivism-and-the-limits-of-law-9781802209310.html" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Interpretivism and the Limits of Law </a> (Edward Elgar, 2022) and Law and Pragmatics, <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">vol. I</a> and <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">vol. II</a><a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030401672" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer"></a> (Springer, 2016 and 2017). Her latest book is Il modello conversazionale (ETS, 2020).</p><p><br />[This episode was hosted by Julieta Rabanos and Bojan Spaić; edited by Bojan Spaić; uploaded and formatted by Julieta Rabanos]</p><p>(00:00:05) Intro – HAPL Podcast</p><p>(00:00:19) Introduction to the Episode – Hosts and Guest</p><p>(00:00:56) Francesca Poggi – Academic Path and Research Interests</p><p>(00:03:32) Main Elements of Poggi's Account of Legal Interpretation</p><p>(00:09:36) An Open Problem – Why Are There Fewer Judicial Conflicts Than Expected?</p><p>(00:12:30) The Conversational Model – A Broad Overview</p><p>(00:17:09) Main Criticisms – Legislative Intention and the Problem of Collective Intentionality</p><p>(00:20:48) The Indeterminacy of Legal Context vs. Ordinary Conversation</p><p>(00:24:19) The Core Distinction Between Legal Interpretation and Conversation</p><p>(00:27:16) Is Legal Interpretation Ever Cooperative?</p><p>(00:31:21) Objectivity in Legal Interpretation – Is It Possible or Necessary?</p><p>(00:33:55) Evaluating Interpretations Without Objectivity – The "Never-Ending Dance"</p><p>(00:37:44) Legal Culture, Values, and Constraints on Judicial Discretion</p><p>(00:41:38) Realism Is Not Arbitrariness – Determinants of Interpretive Convergence</p><p>(00:44:37) Constitutionalized Legal Systems and the Failure of the Conversational Model</p><p>(00:56:22) Democratic Consequences – Does This Picture Threaten the Rule of Law?</p><p>(00:59:51) The Ideal Legislator Dogma and Its Modern Reincarnation as the Competent Speaker Model</p><p>(01:05:00) Connection Between the Competent Speaker Model and the Conversational Approach</p><p>(01:06:05) Closing Remarks and Farewell</p><p>(01:07:05) Outro – HAPL Podcast</p>
February 4, 2026
<p>In this episode, we delve into the topic of the foundations of the economic analysis of law. Where do we stand nowadays in law and economics? How has the field evolved from the classical economic analysis of law to the rise of law and political economy? Is there room for a “limping third way” between these approaches? What are the main methodological problems shaping the field today: unilateralism from economics to law, conceptual simplifications, or institutional pressures within academia? What could a true reconciliation between legal reasoning and economic analysis look like?</p><p><strong>Fabrizio Esposito</strong> joins us to explore these questions and to outline possible paths forward for the discipline. We discuss the evolution and internal divisions of law and economics, the growing distance between theory and practice, and the methodological challenges that hinder interdisciplinary dialogue. Esposito proposes a “fitness-based bilateralism” that bridges empirical and normative inquiry through comparative, inferentialist methods, while also emphasizing the need to revive minoritarian and “third way” perspectives that bring law and economics closer to the realities of legal reasoning and institutional choice.</p><p><strong>Fabrizio Esposito </strong>is an <a href="https://novalaw.unl.pt/en/fabrizio-esposito/#_#nota-biografica" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Associate Professor of Private Law at NOVA School of Law </a>(Lisbon). At NOVA, he co-coordinates the <a href="https://novalaw.unl.pt/en/masters-program-in-law-applied-to-technology-law-and-tech/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Master’s in Law Applied to Technology</a> (Law & Tech) and the <a href="https://novalaw.unl.pt/en/nova-data-driven-law/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Data-Driven Law Knowledge Centre</a>, and he is also Librarian Professor and a member of the <a href="https://novaconsumerlab.fd.unl.pt/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">NOVA Consumer Lab</a>. Outside NOVA, he coordinates the <a href="https://metalawecon.wixsite.com/metalawecon/about-metalawecon" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">MetaLawEcon network</a> and works as an analyst for EU Law Live.</p><p>His research sits at the intersection of private law, EU economic law, law & economics, and legal theory, with particular attention to how consumer law, data protection, competition law, and sector-specific regulation respond to technological change in the “attention economy.” Current strands of work include price personalization and theories of harm in consumer law, especially where consumer data is involved. </p><p>He has published in international journals such as Computer Law & Security Review, European Review of Contract Law, and the Journal of Consumer Policy, and has co-edited volumes such as <a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/research-methods-in-consumer-law-9781785366604.html" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Research Methods in Consumer Law</a> (Edward Elgar, 2018) and<a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030401672" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer"> Economics in Legal Reasoning</a> (Palgrave, 2020).</p><p><br /></p><p>[This episode was hosted by Julieta Rabanos and Bojan Spaić; edited by Bojan Spaić; uploaded and formatted by Julieta Rabanos]</p><p><br /></p><p>(00:00:00) Intro – HAPL Podcast</p><p>(00:00:16) Introduction to the Episode – Hosts and Guest</p><p>(00:01:12) Fabrizio Esposito – Academic Genealogy and Research Interests</p><p>(00:07:49) Where Do We Stand in Law and Economics?</p><p>(00:17:20) Economic Analysis of Law vs. Law and Political Economy vs. the Limping Third Way</p><p>(00:17:43) Clarifying What “Law and Political Economy” Really Means</p><p>(00:19:35) Interdisciplinarity Problems – Economists, Lawyers, and Institutional Barriers</p><p>(00:22:21) Theory and Practice – Are Legal Philosophers Also Guilty of Disconnection?</p><p>(00:30:41) Balancing, Proportionality, and the Use of Economic Concepts in Law</p><p>(00:36:13) Constitutional Adjudication and the Limits of Economic Analysis</p><p>(00:38:04) Methodological Underpinnings – From Descriptive Models to Foundationalism</p><p>(00:45:20) What Are the Methodological Problems in Law and Economics?</p><p>(00:57:29) Institutionalization and the Academic Detachment Problem</p><p>(01:04:09) What Is the Way Forward? ‘Fitness-Based’ Bilateralist & Institutional Solutions</p><p>(01:18:20) The Role of Abstraction and the Value of Theory</p><p>(01:26:40) Normativity in Law and Economics</p><p>(01:36:15) Exploring the Third Way and Minoritarian Views</p><p>(01:43:10) Legal Education and Institutional Reform</p><p>(01:46:22) Teaching Across Disciplines – Law, Philosophy, and Economics</p><p>(01:50:45) Realism and Optimism About the Future of Law and Economics</p><p>(01:54:02) Farewell Reflections – Interdisciplinarity and Academic Change</p><p>(01:57:10) Outro – HAPL Podcast</p>
September 15, 2025
<p><strong>In this episode, we delve into the debate about experimental jurisprudence (also known as</strong><strong> xJur</strong><strong>).</strong> What is exactly “experimental jurisprudence”? What is in turn “experimental philosophy”? What are the methods of xJur and what are the good practices in order to get replicable results? Can we truly achieve knowledge on law through experiments?</p><p><strong>Izabela Skoczeń </strong>discusses with us the raising in importance of experimental jurisprudence in the last years, how it fits within the underlying assumptions in philosophy and jurisprudence related to law, and the criticisms that have been formulated towards it. We explore first a general introduction to both experimental jurisprudence and experimental philosophy, as well as the array of methods used by the former and an overview of the applicable good practices. </p><p>We then address some of the criticisms formulated towards xJur, arguing for the ecological validity of xjur, arguing why xjur is helpful, also when focused on non-expert understanding of concepts, and why a short scenario can shed light on complex conceptual issues. Finally, we close the episode exploring the role of xJur in conceptual analysis and the challenge of conflicting intuitions.</p><p><strong>Izabela Skoczeń </strong>is an assistant professor at the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland. Her work focuses on the intersection of legal theory, experimental jurisprudence and philosophy of language.</p><p>She is a member of <a href="https://pjf.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/start" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">the Jagiellonian Centre for Law, Language and Philosophy</a>, a member of the editorial board of the <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/series/advances-in-experimental-philosophy/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Bloomsbury series ‘Advances in Experimental Philosophy</a>’, and a contributing editor of the <a href="https://juris.jotwell.com/?_gl=1*tgfpmq*_ga*MTU4NzY1OTkzLjE3NTUzNzg4NzI.*_ga_BXXRV43J3Z*czE3NTczNjk2MDIkbzEwJGcxJHQxNzU3MzY5NjAyJGo2MCRsMCRoMA.." target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">jurisprudence section of Jotwell</a>. She is currently working on a project on devising principles for responsible LLM communication with partners from Austria, Romania and Switzerland: <a href="https://talkingtobots.net/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">https://talkingtobots.net</a> . She is also working on a project on cross-cultural replications of experimental jurisprudence studies, together with <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/kevin-tobia/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">K Tobia</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8V-ZZZEAAAAJ&hl=pt-BR" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">J L Nunes</a>.</p><p>She has published in Synthese (<a href="https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11229-022-04000-6?sharing_token=Gkr5opH0NtfkhQlqm0CQcPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY7-Nx9tfd0L6FCi20h6nb-ymraa7xJN_56Y6R8oGT-W975D4Bnhd7yqoP9G4ELwV4SnbVBDkCHgkj5-2Bj-nZxMxvG1TI7QadupnGRC6wJzD9ANwgw4fdasuDotSF17JD0%3D" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Renouncing the attempt versus perpetration distinction</a>, 2023), Bloomsbury (chapter: <a href="https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781350377837&pdfid=9781350377837.ch-9.pdf&tocid=b-9781350377837-chapter9" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">From lying to blaming and perjury: deceptive implicatures in the courtroom and the materiality requirement</a>, 2025), Cognition (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027722002463?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Outcome effects, moral luck and hindsight bias,</a> 2023, with <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=6dFvixUAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">M Kneer</a>), the Leiden Journal of International Law (<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/inside-the-treaty-interpreters-mind-an-experimental-linguistic-approach-to-international-law/FE6A4942DA2079173889B2D310C3542A?fbclid=IwAR0gZyG6FAbgRLPYbruCaaUWmvVkpJ58RY2y7axKwAfQeUNichfQipghSzQ#.ZEbfwjUtD5c.twitter" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Inside the treaty interpreter’s mind: An experimental linguistic approach to international law</a>, 2023, with <a href="https://scholar.google.pl/citations?user=EWofVzoAAAAJ&hl=pl" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">B Pirker</a>), Ratio Juris (<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raju.12344?fbclid=IwAR0XQqeHnaVd4aAidUbD2Fhgic-ZjIcsOljNrgsY_NY-bhoVuckZOOnhNdg" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Delimiting Legal Interpretation: The Problem of Moral Bias and Political Distortion—The Case of Criminal Intention</a>, 2022, with <a href="https://www.unimi.it/it/ugov/person/francesca-poggi" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">F Poggi</a>), the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (<a href="https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11196-021-09818-w?sharing_token=ePVViLy8MYOsqtZAa4xtKfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4XbPk65REMCE1Ui1ZE5ea1b_V9iWHEO0l-Z8ptHw_hpXW18P6dOf-25VQvIn-TaNm_HzHZx_-ohEEx2-cWYE04o_sBSdQR7SHr-few3E_89WmhnZRC4ObRywxKqlNDYU0%3D" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Modelling Perjury: Between Trust and Blame</a>, 2021), Oxford University Press (chapter: <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/language-and-legal-interpretation-in-international-law-9780190855208?cc=pl&lang=en&" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Is a Legal Implicature in the Eye of its Beholder?</a>, 2022). She has authored a monograph, <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-12532-5" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Implicatures within Legal Language</a>, in 2019, in the Springer Law and Philosophy Library.</p><p>Overviews of xJur work mentioned: </p><ol><li><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-jurisprudence/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on experimental jurisprudence</a> by K Tobia, G Almeida, K Prochownik and I Hannikainen</li><li><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-experimental-jurisprudence/15186215E870AD1C501AB4A79BEDFB6C" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence</a> ed by K Tobia</li><li><a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol89/iss3/3/" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Overview article by K Tobia</a></li><li><a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf0711" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Overview article by R Sommers</a></li><li><a href="https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12791" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">Overview article by K Prochownik</a></li></ol><p><br></p><p>[This episode was hosted by Julieta Rabanos and Bojan Spaić; edited by Bojan Spaić; uploaded and formatted by Julieta Rabanos]</p><p><br></p><p>(00:00:00) Intro HAPL</p><p>(00:00:18) Introduction to the episode – hosts and guest</p><p>(00:00:58) Izabela Skoczeń – Academic Genealogy and Research Interests</p><p>(00:05:04) Experimental Jurisprudence (xJur) – What exactly is it?</p><p>(00:12:32) xJur and Experimental Philosophy</p><p>(00:27:49) An Underlying Assumption – does law deal with facts?</p><p>(00:33:53) Methods of xJur & Replicability</p><p>(00:45:54) Some Criticisms Formulated Towards xJur</p><p>(00:54:42) xJur & Conceptual Analysis - The Challenge of conflicting intuitions</p><p>(01:11:02) Farewell and last words</p><p>(01:15:34) Outro HAPL</p>
Guests from recent episodes — sign up to see every guest that has ever appeared on this show.
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco
Guest
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
Heavily Accented Philosophy of Law podcast (HAPL) is an initiative of EU Twinning Project ALF (“Advancing Cooperation on the Foundations of Law”).
ALF is a project coordinated by the Center for Legal Fundamentals of the Faculty of Law University of Belgrade.
To know more about the project: https://alf.ius.bg.ac.rs/
This podcast updates bi-weekly.
This podcast is available on 6 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.